German Homeopathy Companies Pay Journalist who Smears UK Academic

A consortium of pharmaceutical companies in Germany have been paying a journalist €43,000 to run a set of web sites that denigrates an academic who has published research into their products.

These companies, who make homeopathic sugar pills, were exposed in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung in an article,Schmutzige Methoden der sanften Medizin (The Dirty Tricks of Alternative Medicine.)

This story has not appeared in the UK media. And it should. Because it is a scandal that directly involves the UK’s most prominent academic in Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

The newspaper accuses the companies of funding the journalist, Claus Fritzsche, to denigrate critics of homeopathy. In particular, the accusation is that Fritzsche wrote about UK academic Professor Edzard Ernst on several web sites and then linked them together in order to raise their Google ranking. Fritzsche continually attacks Ernst of being frivolous, incompetent and partisan.

It is simple to use Google to pillory someone: all it needs is a professional-looking Web page in which a person’s credibility is undermined. Then the name of the person to discredit should be mentioned in the text as often as possible. The page will be automatically ranked in the top results when someone searches for the person. For people whose credibility is their capital, such as journalists and academics, this digital character assassination is particularly devastating. [My translation]

Edzard Ernst was the first Professor of Complementary Medicine and held the Laing Chair at the University of Exeter in South-West England. The chair was set up by Sir Maurice Laing in 1993 to provide rigorous research into alternative medicines. Laing realised that high quality research was required if various forms of alternative medicine were to become mainstream. Ernst said in an interview that Laing believed that “it was more important to conduct good research to a standard that would be acceptable even to sceptics, than to bend over backwards in an attempt to generate positive findings”.

And that is what Edzard Ernst has done over the past two decades. In particular, Ernst has pioneered and championed the idea that alternative medicine can be subject to the same rigours of evidence-based medicine as any other treatment. He has produced many systematic reviews of treatments that draw together all available evidence to assess what overall conclusions it is possible to come to. When the evidence has been positive, he has said so. But his problem has been that, for a wide range of treatments, including homeopathy, the evidence is overwhelmingly negative, non-existent, or at best, inconclusive.

This has angered many proponents of the various forms of supersitious and pseudoscientific health practices. Homeopaths in particular have been furious that Ernst has not used his Chair to promote alternative medicine. They see his results, not as scientifically objective, but as a betrayal of their beliefs.

For his efforts, Ernst is continuously attacked. The Vice-Chancellor of Exeter has been written to by foaming homeopaths. His blogs for the GP magazine, Pulse, see a hoard of homeopaths turn up for every article to shout their abuse. But most worryingly, Ernst was attacked by Prince Charles when he was critical of a politicised report into the funding of alternative medicine by the NHS, insitigated by Charles, and funded by Dame Shirley Porter. Prince Charles’s principal private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, sent a letter to Exeter that almost cost him his job.

I spoke to Edzard about these revelations that homeopathy companies are funding his attackers. In particular, he noted how Fritzsche conducted an interview with him that resulted in an article that suggested Ernst had been lying about having homeopathic qualifications. The article was published in the Deutscher Zentralverein homöopathischer Ärzte (German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians) which presented Ernst as having no qualifications, of misleading people about them, and not being fit to judge homeopathy. Ernst claims that the discussion he had was misrepresented in the write-up of the interview which resulted in him looking as if he was being defensive about his qualifications.

UK Homeopaths have jumped on this with gusto in order to discredit Ernst. Of course it is nonsense. Ernst started his career in a homeopathic hospital in Germany, and is fully familiar with its claims. He was accepted into Exeter because of his skills and experiences. But to claim that he cannot speak about homeopathy because he has not formally trained in such areas is to insist that you have a degree in Invisible Imperial Textiles before mentioning the Emperor has no clothes on.

The CAM Media.Watch blog states that it is a blog for journalists to challenge the misrepresentations of alternative medicine in the media and to address ‘grievances’. In practice, the blog attacks, not just Ernst, but journalists who do not uncritically promote pseudoscientific therapies. When Max Rauner wrote an article in ZEIT discussing Edzard Ernst and his critics, Fritzsche attacked the piece. Ernst said to me that there were at least 31 ‘untruths’ in that response about him.

Another contributor to Fritzsche’s blog is Harald Walach. The Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote an article about Walach and his ideas that quantum theory could come to the rescue of the problems of homeopathy. Walach is in charge of the Institute for Transcultural Health Sciences at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), a group that researches clairvoyance and esoteric healing beliefs. His chair is endowed by homeopathy manufacturer Heel, who are also one of the companies funding the CAM Media.Watch blog.

Harald Walach is a quantum flapdoodler. That is, he writes papers trying to insert quantum theory into homeopathy. They impress homeopaths. I had an exchange of emails with him a few years ago where I was able to show he had no idea what he was talking about when it came to quantum theory. As a social scientist and postmodernist, this is not a surprise. In response to the Süddeutsche Zeitung article that was critical of Walach’s ideas and quantum theories, Walach criticised the ‘bad journalism’ and claimed Markus Schulte had not understood his quantum flapdoodle. As he would.

As a result of the report in Süddeutsche Zeitung, a long discussion ensued on the Facebook page of one of the ‘sponsoring’ companies. People were asking Weleda, the anthroposophical health company, why they were engaging in such questionable practices. As a result, Weleda have now pulled out of their agreement with Claus Fritzsche. Other companies appear to continue to support him. Ernst has been trying to engage with one of the largest, the Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU), a subsidiary of the Schwabe Pharmaceuticals Group, but a planned meeting has been cancelled.

There is something of an irony is this scandal. Of course, people should be free to express their views in blogs and newspapers. People should even be free to be consistently wrong and absurd. But this is a clear example of where a writer is being paid by a vested interest to continue activities systematically denigrating an academic over his published work. What is ironic is that it is an axiomatic belief in homeopathic circles that people like me are paid large sums of money by pharmaceutical companies to carry out the writing and speaking that I do. It is of course nonsense. And yet here are homeopaths doing exactly what they say is so immoral and despicable about sceptics of homeopathy.

One month ago, Edzard Ernst retired from his position at Exeter. He is doing so amidst a continued attack on his integrity from all corners of the alternative medicine world. In contrast to this constant attack from vested interests and paid attackers, we should look at what what Edzard says about his own motivations and obligations:

People mistakenly think I must be a promoter of complementary medicine – that I should have an allegiance to the camp. I don’t. My allegiance is firstly to the patient – I feel that very strongly as an ex-clinician – and secondly to science. If in the course of that I have to hurt the feelings of homeopaths I regret that, but I can’t help it.

Ernst will continue to write and be outspoken about alternative medicine. His retirement may actually give him more freedom to do so. It is a shame there are not more academics like him. Most are highly partisan and see research as a way of validating their preferred quackery rather than a means to uncovering the truth. In this world of “quackademia”, it is the patient that will end up being misled and suffering. And if you attempt to put the truth and the patient first, you will be pilloried by the believers in pseudoscience and superstition.

must not “misunderstand the job as promoting alternative medicine”, a failing, he believes, to which all the other professors of complementary medicine that have been appointed around the world since 1993 have succumbed.

“They present themselves as scientists but they are all using science as a drunk man uses a lamp post: for support and not for enlightenment,” he said. “My unit is the only one that actually understands critical assessment as it should be.”

If you are researching complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and you are not hated by the CAM world, you’re not doing it right.

This has now been accepted as Ernst’s Law. I hope it is an insight that more people will get: that alternative medicine is not medicine and it is not alternative, and if you want unbiased information about it, you do not consult with practitioners, or sadly even the vast majority of academics who specialise in CAM. They are holders of sacred truths, and critics must be squashed and to hell with the ethics of it all.

Thanks for making people aware of this. Now if only other publications followed suit…

I am German, and I’ve been watching in horror how a state-funded school continues to toss huge chunks of public funds at bad ideas (Harald Walach at Viadrina) and how institutions that think of themselves as being reputable, e.g. the German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians, fund someone who’s a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic (Fritzsche).

By employing someone like CF they prove they are not up to arguing on a rational ground.

Slightly off topic: the “pharmaceutical” company Heel that not only funds HW’s post at Viadrina and supports CF’s blogs is 100% owned by Stefan Quandt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Quandt), of BMW fame. So everyone who buys a BMW helps fund quackery.

My comments are all for free, but since the duck is spending a considerable amount of time researching and writing about CAM, managing a blog and all that jazz, it is a good question to ask.
There is no such thing as a free lunch

No, it isn’t, because the answer to it (albeit probably not the one you wanted) can easily be found by clicking on the “ABOUT” link that can be found at the top of each page on the blog. Asking it just makes you look wilfully ignorant.

How droll. It is inevitable that someone would pop up to ask this question.

No I do not get paid, and nor have I ever been paid. I have received some travel expenses when giving talks and the rather wonderful Positive Internet company host my blog for free because they are into progressive things.

People write blogs like this because they find it interesting and important. That is all the motive needed.

Tell me, skeptococci, do you earn any money from the world of alternative medicine?

I see, the white knight in the shining armour who want to rid the world from evil homeopath!
That’s a load of rubbish, Andy..
You have a wife and kids, you must earn a living, you seem to spend a lot of time researching, managing your blog, attending skeptic events
Really, what’s in it or you?

Even if those of us contributing from the rational side of this discussion were ferried around in black helicopters as highly paid servants of the NWO it would not affect the validity of our arguments. We use logical reasonable arguments backed up by evidence. The supporters of woo, yourself included, post literally nothing except fallacious drivel and personal abuse.

I’ve been playing this game for about 10 years now and I have never yet seen one of your tribe make sensible relevant arguments and win the debate. You can’t. Sensible relevant arguments defeat you. The truth, that you will not face, is that you resort to these silly diversions to distract yourself from this

Actually, most of Fritzsche’s “foaming at the mouth lunacy”, to quote Anonymous above, is targeted against Psiram.com – a Wiki quite similar in intent and style to RationalWiki, heavily critical of various quacks and quackery practices.

Whenever Fritzsche sees this Wiki mentioned anywhere without it being labelled as a “criminal enterprise”, he punishes the writer by putting up blog posts entitled with his name and garnished with keywords like “internet crime” and vague allegations of him or her being part of that horrid conspiracy. In Fritzsche’s own words and twisted logic, anyone who mentions Voldemor…uh, Psiram.com without properly denouncing it as the biggest crime since WWII is making themselves “vulnerable to attack”. Fritzsche has been plastering the names and private addresses of people he believes to be behind Psiram.com across the Web, of course without any evidence to support this.

As per his SOP, each of his writeups is linked and cross-linked and linked again within his little pool of blogs to make sure it gets the proper Google boost.

The homeopathy industry is of course sponsoring this one-man-show of slander and libel knowingly, and deliberately: because they’ve been told about it and still continue to pay him.

What’s Murdoch and GSK got to do with these utterly different companies doing totally different things ? Outside your own warped perspective, the rest of us aren’t so mental as to think any behaviour in any area is somehow made acceptable because Murdoch was on the GSK board.

Murdoch became a non-executive director of GSK in 2009, to serve on the ‘corporate responsibility committee’ [sick!] with a remit to review “external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group’s business and reputation”.

You have now retreated into posts that contain nothing about the actual topic of discussion. You have proven yourself either unwilling or incapable of engaging with the actual issues. It’s probably time to bid farewell to all the nice people and go upstairs to bed.

There is more than one bad thing in the world. No one is obliged to tackle all of them, or even to tackle them in order of badness.

In England, right now, many people are wasting their money and their hope on CAM. Those people deserve to have the case against CAM laid out for them. There is no need for them to wait till all other wrongs are righted.

And there is obviously scope for one to spend one’s own spare time on things that one actually finds interesting. I find the wacky world of SCAM interesting hence the time I am prepared to devote to exploring its inanities.

Why, Cybertiger, do you spend your time bitching about the criticism of SCAM when Syria is in flames? Off you go and sort that out. Then get back to us once you’re done.

A normal drug company has to prove a drug does no harm and is effective in a double blind study. Homeopathy companies would have no problem showing water is harmless, but surely they have no evidence at all of its effectiveness. How do they get the right to produce drugs?

I see. Apparently selling water at medicine prices provides a large pool of funds with which to bribe legislators. I guess the crooks justify it to themselves that the water does not hurt anyone (other than by persuading people to use proper medicine). Perhaps they tell themselves the people who use homeopathy have no physical problem, and water is the safest placebo.

By the way, I know that it’s not exactly a regulated profession and what with Web 2.0 and all, but calling Mr Fritzsche a “journalist” is a bit of a stretch.

He’s writing his blogs and is paid to send out press releases and such stuff. AFAIK he has never contributed articles to any real publication as a journalist. It’s probably most apt to describe him as a freelance PR writer/consultant.

(Sure, Mr Fritzsche loves to assume the title of “medical journalist”, particularly when he lashes out against homeopathy critics who supposedly aren’t qualified to discuss homeopathy. Of course, Mr Fritzsche himself has no qualification to speak of in medicine, science or journalism.)

I’m not being paid by anyone, and my blog is full of criticism of Big Pharma. I’ve lost track of the number of dodgy drugs and flawed stats I’ve slated. No-one could accuse me of being a shill, in other words.

Not as big as yours though Cybertiger! I’d never be brave enough to publically defend homeopathy, but you’re doing it. Most people would fear they’d look riduculous promoting such an absurd idea. I salute your courage.

“Let both sides be heard”. You know that principle, Canard? It is not unusual to regulate the independency of a journalist by contract. The companies say in the article (can you read German , Canard?) that there is such a contract. The journalist of the article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung presents more statements of the companies. You of course have left these statements out.

Why do anthroposophical (I’ll focus on them) pharmaceutical companies even need to pay a ‘journalist’? (Can’t they make do with an ordinary PR consultant, preferably one with at least one decent bone left in his body?)

And, if you have a splendid answer to the question of why they need it, why this particular one? Do you think they’d pay just anyone, perhaps a real journalist, working objectively and independently, perhaps even a proper journalist who knows medicine? Independence, my arse. What does it matter as long as the person they’re paying is heavily biased in their favour already? As you know, reading German and all, the Süddeutsche Zeitung rightly doubts Fritzsche’s independence — despite the existence of that contract clause. That’s the point — nobody would or should take his independence seriously. They’re paying him because they know what kind of stuff he produces. They know he’ll write things they agree with (or believed they wished to agree with, until this PR disaster erupted).

The statements Andy has left out don’t reflect very well on the good judgement of the companies presenting them, so perhaps you ought to be happy he left them out, Jan… They come off as rather dimwitted, actually. Perhaps they wanted to pretend ignorance and incompetence, what do I know.

It is not without irony that the claims Fritsche would slam Ernst on something like missing credentials as a homeopath. He, Fritsche, is by training not a journalist–the Süddeutsche piece tells us as much–but holds a degree in Business Administration. (Betriebswirtschaftslehre)

Mark, I am sorry of my choice of blog topic offends you and that you feel that I should be talking about something else. Please supply me with a list of all bad things in the world, ranked in order of total harm and then let me know when it is possible to start criticising homeopaths and their antics.

Fritzsche’s impact on Prof Ernst’s standing is very limited (because enough is written about him to make it hard for Fritzsche to get a high google ranking for his “journalism”). Unfortunately the same is not true for Fritzsche’s other targets. Some of them are freelance writers (real journalists), others bloggers, scientists and blogging scientists. Whoever dares to write (or speak, e.g. as an interviewee) critically about CAM under their real name may end up on Fritsche’s “watch list”. Often, Fritzsche’s “journalism” comes up within the first page of a google search for these people’s names so that it may actually have some impact on their carreer.

….A consortium of pharmaceutical companies in Germany have been paying a journalist €43,000 to run a set of web sites that denigrates an academic who has published research into their products…

Why are you upset? Actually you can now negotiate better with your group. If Mr. Claus Fritzsche can get such large amount from poor homeopathic companies, the pharma companies can surely do better for you.Use this opportunity. Look at the amount of work you have to do.

..Ernst has pioneered and championed the idea that alternative medicine can be subject to the same rigours of evidence-based medicine as any other treatment. He has produced many systematic reviews of treatments that draw together all available evidence to assess what overall conclusions it is possible to come to…

The correct statement here should be: His effort has been to denigrate all studies and conclude that all evidence is overwhelmingly negative, non-existent, or at best, inconclusive. All trials are poorly performed. If not possible, run a meta analysis on studies carried out over 20 years and come back with a result: inconclusive.

The studies use the same yardstick as that of drugs that have cleared all tests and then after sometime, doctors start complaining that the patients are dying of complaints that were not there to start with. Then the drug is withdrawn as now adverse effects are more than the benefits.

Jafpcu, it’s really easy – Iqbal “knows” homeopathy/CAM “works”, therefore everyone who finds it doesn’t is a liar. In his eyes (and in the eyes of most CAM practitioners and patients) being a Professor of CAM means being a believer and promoter of CAM. It’s not about finding out IF these modalities work (or which of them do), it’s about convincing people they DO work.

When a bunch of anti-semites got the their pages to the top of the Google search for the word “jew” the response was to get lots of people to something similar but make there web pages point to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

Obviously people could have tried to get it to link to something they created but it would have been harder to get so many people on board because that could be seen as biased in a different way.

So I think what I am saying is: Lots of people blog about Edzard Ernst and link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst in your blog post… and generally try to get a link to that article on to lots of different web pages about him.

1. Andy Lewis is curious as Harald Walach accused of having no idea about quantum physics. Despite this I see that it is Lewis who has no idea, at least Walach has published articles with some physical and mathematical. And where are the work of Lewis on quantum physics? Where does Lewis demonstrates his knowledge of quantum physics?

2. On the subject of the blog, Lewis wants to show as a victim to Edzard Ernst. Forget Lewis, the criticisms made ​​by other acedémicos to the poor methodology in several of its systematic reviews of homeopathy, forget Lewis Edzard Ernst agree not to have completed training in complementary medicine but is advertised as a qualified professional in several studies. Even Biologist Ernst shows a complete lack of knowledge about that criticism, ridicule focuses more on that argument.

3. Lewis forgets that the book “Trick or treat” was funded in part by the Sense About Science Is Where criticism from Lewis!

4. Lewis never mentions that Edzard Ernst was a reviewer for the journal Homeopathy. This is relevant because it reflects that it probably did not understand Ernst articles.

5. Edzard Ernst is the key point for Skeptikal Comitte Investigation and part of the multinacionalk Cfi.

6. Ernst has its own magazine FACT (focus in alternative and complementary medicine). Articles in this juzados can not be good quality, unlike suffer from serious flaws explanatory publication bias, and use as part of Ernst ideology.

7. Ernst is therefore an instrument of demagoguery on the part of leaders skeptical groups such as CSI, Cfi, SAS, GWUP and media as the same Wikipedia, EsoWatch, Rational Wiki as the main.

2. One point that is not surprising as opinion leaders such as James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Ben Goldacre, Harriet Hall, Steven Novella, … including Andy Lewis and Stephen Barrett, stop at the minimum information that they do against conventional industry, which often pay lobbyists skeptical or indirectly invest as Sense About Science.

3. An almost fanatical worship the person of Carl Sagan, as the hero who must trust all future progress of science.

4. The constant attack all kinds of lies, insults, slanders. These groups and users often skeptical acuasr the other to be who “create fallacies.” Apparently skeptical of the U.S. and UK are those who struggle against the old structure almost feudal aristocrat who gave support to homeopathy, a more ideological struggles, contaminated by a false science as is the “scientific skepticism” as advocated by the CSI.

EXCELLENT NEW DEVELOPMENT:
one more of the firms [DHU] financing the character assassin have pulled out. they said to me over the phone that the blog was no longer pursuing the original aim of promoting CAM

Can anyone seriously believe all Edzard Ernst studies as the best method, when even the same analysis of Shang not take into account?
1. Reading largely opinion notes several points of homeopathy: Edzard try to accuse others of ad hominem fallacies, but Ernst exceeds most committing this fallacy.
2. Edzard says that homeopathy is “just water”, forgetting that there are low dilutions who fail the Avogadro number. Or is that Ernst does not know that there is still a dilution componenete molecular 6D? Basic chemistry!
3. Ernst portrays homeopathy as a product of magical thinking and homeopathic magic. This thesis in anthropology is out of context, homeopathic magic was nominated by James George Frazer and does not refer to homeopathy of Samuel Hahnemann. Add that the same argument today is seudoscientífic and erroneous application of the philosophy of skepticism “scientific”
4.Ernst believes that there is no pharmacological basis, biological, chemical or physical. This was raised in several comments on the criticism of it. For example:http://www.csicop.org/author/edzardernst
5. Perhaps most bizarre is the recent article appeared in FACT on the conflict of interest in the Swiss report. Although Ernst clarifies certain points, portrayed as competent researchers Baumgartner Wolf or as simple “homeopaths” a clear ad-hominem. Another good point is that it neglects to mention that although the Swiss study has some flaws, is much better than the report of the House of Commons. In the latter Ernst not explicitly criticizes although there appears Sense About Science. A clear double standard!

It’s not clear whether Magufo is expecting replies to his posts and they’re close to incomprehensible. But, I’ll give it a go.

Can anyone seriously believe all Edzard Ernst studies as the best method, when even the same analysis of Shang not take into account?

That is incomprehensible. Not a good start.

1. Reading largely opinion notes several points of homeopathy:

Incomprehensible.

Edzard try to accuse others of ad hominem fallacies, but Ernst exceeds most committing this fallacy.

That may be your opinion. You would need to produce evidence to support it. Ernst has an extensive published record in the field. You have none, I suspect, unless you are posting here in your comedy voice and are capable of coherent communication when you want to.

2. Edzard says that homeopathy is “just water”, forgetting that there are low dilutions who fail the Avogadro number.

So, what? Most of homeopathy uses content-free sugar or water and its advocates claim this is why it is so safe. All well-informed commentators know that low-dilution remedies exist. You would need to explain the bizarre dose-response behaviour that is implied by this. Low-potency homeopathy depends on a “Law of Similars” that is as defective as its other basic tenets.

Or is that Ernst does not know that there is still a dilution componenete molecular 6D? Basic chemistry!

No reply needed

3. Ernst portrays homeopathy as a product of magical thinking and homeopathic magic. This thesis in anthropology is out of context, homeopathic magic was nominated by James George Frazer and does not refer to homeopathy of Samuel Hahnemann. Add that the same argument today is seudoscientífic and erroneous application of the philosophy of skepticism “scientific”

Those of us outside homeopathy’s mental prison see that the concept is the same. Hahnemann and Frazer used the same word because they were describing phenomena that are the same. The difference is that Hahnemann thought he was describing real processes whereas Frazer was engaging in an analysis of processes that he knew to be imaginary. The failure is Hahnemann’s and yours.

4.Ernst believes that there is no pharmacological basis, biological, chemical or physical. This was raised in several comments on the criticism of it. For example:http://www.csicop.org/author/edzardernst

And?

5. Perhaps most bizarre is the recent article appeared in FACT on the conflict of interest in the Swiss report. Although Ernst clarifies certain points, portrayed as competent researchers Baumgartner Wolf or as simple “homeopaths” a clear ad-hominem.

Incomprehensible.

Another good point is that it neglects to mention that although the Swiss study has some flaws, is much better than the report of the House of Commons. In the latter Ernst not explicitly criticizes although there appears Sense About Science. A clear double standard!

What double-standard? There are several detailed critical analyses of that Swiss report explaining both its flaws and also the mendacious way in which homeopaths are promoting it. The blog here at Quackometer and the one at zenosblog explain this.

You have a problem with the House of Commons’ report, but beyond its the fact that the magic-water retailers did not like its conclusions, no competent criticism has been made of its content. Homeopaths had there chance to present evidence and used it to tell half-truths and present distortions they have only themselves to blame.

[apologies in advance for any syntax errors. It’s not easy formatting these posts on a phone]

It’s not clear whether Magufo is expecting replies to his posts and they’re close to incomprehensible. But, I’ll give it a go.

Can anyone seriously believe all Edzard Ernst studies as the best method, when even the same analysis of Shang not take into account?

That is incomprehensible. Not a good start.

1. Reading largely opinion notes several points of homeopathy:

Incomprehensible.

Edzard try to accuse others of ad hominem fallacies, but Ernst exceeds most committing this fallacy.

That may be your opinion. You would need to produce evidence to support it. Ernst has an extensive published record in the field. You have none, I suspect, unless you are posting here in your comedy voice and are capable of coherent communication when you want to.

2. Edzard says that homeopathy is “just water”, forgetting that there are low dilutions who fail the Avogadro number.

So, what? Most of homeopathy uses content-free sugar or water and its advocates claim this is why it is so safe. All well-informed commentators know that low-dilution remedies exist. You would need to explain the bizarre dose-response behaviour that is implied by this. Low-potency homeopathy depends on a “Law of Similars” that is as defective as its other basic tenets.

Or is that Ernst does not know that there is still a dilution componenete molecular 6D? Basic chemistry!

No reply needed

3. Ernst portrays homeopathy as a product of magical thinking and homeopathic magic. This thesis in anthropology is out of context, homeopathic magic was nominated by James George Frazer and does not refer to homeopathy of Samuel Hahnemann. Add that the same argument today is seudoscientífic and erroneous application of the philosophy of skepticism “scientific”

Those of us outside homeopathy’s mental prison see that the concept is the same. Hahnemann and Frazer used the same word because they were describing phenomena that are the same. The difference is that Hahnemann thought he was describing real processes whereas Frazer was engaging in an analysis of processes that he knew to be imaginary. The failure is Hahnemann’s and yours.

4.Ernst believes that there is no pharmacological basis, biological, chemical or physical. This was raised in several comments on the criticism of it. For example:http://www.csicop.org/author/edzardernst

And?

5. Perhaps most bizarre is the recent article appeared in FACT on the conflict of interest in the Swiss report. Although Ernst clarifies certain points, portrayed as competent researchers Baumgartner Wolf or as simple “homeopaths” a clear ad-hominem.

Incomprehensible.

Another good point is that it neglects to mention that although the Swiss study has some flaws, is much better than the report of the House of Commons. In the latter Ernst not explicitly criticizes although there appears Sense About Science. A clear double standard!

What double-standard? There are several detailed critical analyses of that Swiss report explaining both its flaws and also the mendacious way in which homeopaths are promoting it. The blog here at Quackometer and the one at zenosblog explain this.

You have a problem with the House of Commons’ report, but beyond its the fact that the magic-water retailers did not like its conclusions, no competent criticism has been made of its content. Homeopaths had there chance to present evidence and used it to tell half-truths and present distortions they have only themselves to blame.

I am not denying the criticism of the Swiss report. That’s good to have criticism. But double standards are to praise the report of the House of Commons, report that has major flaws and seems more foul play from the Sense About Science.

Yours is strange. Dating a response published in the journal Homeopathy by Paul Winston. He defends the trial as correct shang know. and?
First you would have to explain why many say pseudoescepticos pseudo Homeopathy is a magazine and then explain that validate only negative criticism like Winston or Gaylard for example those linked to it “fake journal”. Yet another double standard.
Paul Winston is not actually “destroys” the article, is only his opinion.

5. Perhaps most bizarre is the recent article appeared in FACT on the conflict of interest in the Swiss report. Although Ernst clarifies certain points, portrayed as competent researchers Baumgartner Wolf or as simple “homeopaths” a clear ad-hominem. Another good point is that it neglects to mention that although the Swiss study has some flaws, is much better than the report of the House of Commons. In the latter Ernst not explicitly criticizes although there appears Sense About Science. A clear double standard!

BSM has taken care of the others, but I’d like to ask you more about this point in particular.

What makes you believe that the Swiss HTA (I assume you’re not talking about the PEK report?) is much better than the HoC report?

In the latter Ernst not explicitly criticizes although there appears Sense About Science. A clear double standard!

And does it answer my question about why you believe the Swiss HTA is better than the HoC report or does it explain what: “In the latter Ernst not explicitly criticizes although there appears Sense About Science. A clear double standard!” means?

Even something that is strictly linked to the report of the House of Commons, is from the beginning of this decade the constant pressures from groups that have gained prestige skeptical (just yet), money, business, reputation (reports, columnists, etc.) together with the mask of the Center for Inquiry: Sense About Science. All these shows like Amaz! Ng Meeting, Skepticamp, and the links of social Darwinism (Richard Dawkins and the theory of memes), pseudo social movements like 10:23 or reactionary movements, the constant diversion of funds to campaigns skeptical “rational thought, atheism, librepensaminto” and other masks are a fake.
That is to say the easy manipulation (not just the believers in any alternative medicine) but skeptical bloggers, and Psyops of constant use as the myth that all homeopathy and “water only” or “no eviencias absolute “(said by Hess wool above), or constant polarization of ideas like this blog seeing only the side not desesado corruption, but never the place itself.
There is a clear connection between some industries, multinationals skeptical, and media manipulation mechanisms in Wikipedia, and blogs as a means of dissemination of ideas (I guess the memes) in the context pseudo skeptic.

Your attempts at unfounded – and patently ridiculous – smears are noted, but nothing new. Is that the best you can up with?

I am not denying the criticism of the Swiss report. That’s good to have criticism. But double standards are to praise the report of the House of Commons, report that has major flaws and seems more foul play from the Sense About Science.

Was that supposed to be the answer to my question? It isn’t.

I am asking you why you believe the Swiss report is better then the HoC report. Please also confirm you are talking about the Swiss homeopathy HTA and not the PEK report.

Have you read all of the Swiss homeopathy HTA? If so, which version?

What flaws can you see in the Swiss homeopathy HTA?

Please explain what you believe to be the double standards of criticising a flawed report and not criticising a good quality report.

The arguments against the Swiss report have been several, as they appeared in FACT written by Ernst. And as many ethics generally referred to as a Swiss magazine. And I recognize some defects in the Swiss report. Despite this the report of the House of Commons does not discuss anything beyond the basics, including miso dressage repeats that homeopathy is just water, that’s what he believes Sense About Science. He keeps suggesting that there is no evidence, that does not exist. It’s the same pseudoscientific jargon of the CSI.

“Most of the authors of the HTA were homeopaths,and none of the many critics of homeopathy had contributed to this report. The evidence was also highly selective. Critical texts were systematically omitted, and issues such as the biological implausibility of homeopathy 11 were almost entirely excluded.”

I’m keeping you in the report is flawed.
Switzerland’s report has some errors like Edzard Ernst notes that, although Ernst commits a fatal error saying that no negative reports were published as his own out in the journal Biologist that was published in 2012 (Ernst E. Testing the water. Biologist 2012, 59: 19-21.), with the Swiss report was prepared in 2011. Ernst did not have that have cited your article in relation to the report as it did, it seems to be more self advertising really contribute something useful.
Now about the double standard lies in the same report of the House of Commons it gets to the organization Sense About Science as pressure, no criticism from skeptics to it, does not take into account the same references and detailed flow researchers in homeopathy. And focus only on the flawed analysis of Shang as a panacea for homeopathy.

I think it would be more correct to say that none of the reports can be used against or in favor of homeopathy.

“Most of the authors of the HTA were homeopaths,and none of the many critics of homeopathy had contributed to this report. The evidence was also highly selective. Critical texts were systematically omitted, and issues such as the biological implausibility of homeopathy 11 were almost entirely excluded.”

I’m keeping you in the report is flawed.
Switzerland’s report has some errors like Edzard Ernst notes that, although Ernst commits a fatal error saying that no negative reports were published as his own out in the journal Biologist that was published in 2012 (Ernst E. Testing the water. Biologist 2012, 59: 19-21.), with the Swiss report was prepared in 2011. Ernst did not have that have cited your article in relation to the report as it did, it seems to be more self advertising really contribute something useful.
Now about the double standard lies in the same report of the House of Commons it gets to the organization Sense About Science as pressure, no criticism from skeptics to it, does not take into account the same references and detailed flow researchers in homeopathy. And focus only on the flawed analysis of Shang as a panacea for homeopathy.

No, the Swiss homeopathy HTA was not prepared or even published in 2011.

Please read my blog post about it for the full story of why you are completely wrong.

Homeopaths wrote a flawed and biased report for the PEK and a summary of it was published in 2006. That HTA has never been published.

The document you cited that was published in English last year is based on the HTA, but it has been added to and changed by Bornhöft et al. and it is not the same as was submitted to the PEK.

Please tell us what the PEK – a commission set up by the Swiss Government – thought of the homeopathy HTA and the other evidence and what they decided as a result. If you can do that and get it correct, then we might know whether or not you have read and understood it.

You then go on – yet again – to assert something about double standards seemingly because Sense About Science gave evidence to the House of Commons Committee? Please list the others who were questioned by the Committee and those who submitted written evidence. Then explain to me exactly what the Committee got wrong.

I think it would be more correct to say that none of the reports can be used against or in favor of homeopathy.

Thank you for telling us what you think, but you are completely wrong. The Swiss homeopathy HTA was biased and flawed, but the House of Commons report stands up to scrutiny. Some homeopaths have attempted to demolish it, failing miserably and in doing so, showed their inability to think critically or clearly or unable to set aside their biases and prejudices and think with an open mind.

Perhaps you could also tell us what homeopaths are doing about submitting robust scientific evidence to teh Swiss Government in 2015? Do you know what happens in 2017 if they don’t?

I understand what you say, to report that I am referring to is the current publisher Springer, with slight changes if you like. I still find it odd that no faults in the biased report of the House of Commons. Thanks for the explanation but it was not necessary the details of your blog and knew.

If you still think the report of the House of Commons is neutral and objective, being disappointed. Most of the sections on evidence never discussed. Remember that even the famous report was never authorized by all parliamentarians.
Yet in the section on meta analysis has shown that the analysis of Shang was biased, but for example, unshaven Mono only thing it does is quote me a review of Paul Winston and other blogs like Science Based Medicine and comments without of general validity that is not a real and coherent analysis, but rather are filled with anger and hatred towards homeopathy.
Perhaps your most current bias is to repeat ad-nausaeum that “have not produced any evidence at all” when references are cited the same report, some of whom never mention them here or on other blogs. You can say there is no evidence suficente, but say there is no evidence at all is wrong.

Even the above report does not take into account many articles that today give us a better idea of ​​how homeopathy can act (if at all).
In conclusion, the report of the House of Commons talk more about health policy and on a slight introduction of evidence and means are to evaluate (RTC Dobl blind …), and the proposal therefore advocates homeopathy and the Sense About Science. But never was a discussion between them,
If you think there is no evidence that the only systematic reviews of Edzard Ernst says so, I see no remedy.

Even the findings of the anti homeopathy are often selective, in the same report of the House of Commons on page 56:

“56. For example, a 30C dilution Indicates That Has Been Diluted the solution in the ratio of
1:100, thirty times successively, one drop of the solution would be the original Diluted with 100
drops of water and the solution would be Diluted RESULTING again, and so on Until 30
dilutions HAD taken place. According To the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, in
Some homeopathic products “not a single molecule events of the Original Substance Remains
Diluted in the medicine prescribed to the patient “.60”

Just mention the power 30CH with the specific purpose of identifying only with homeopathy dilutions supean Avogadro limit, but do not mention the low doses.

The report of the House of Commons needs to be reviewed and scrutinized to see in detail that reflects objectives (not just the simplistic arguments of the pseudo-skeptics) both political and economic, ideological and social.

Even something that is strictly linked to the report of the House of Commons, is from the beginning of this decade the constant pressures from groups that have gained prestige skeptical (just yet), money, business, reputation (reports, columnists, etc.) together with the mask of the Center for Inquiry: Sense About Science. All these shows like Amaz! Ng Meeting, Skepticamp, and the links of social Darwinism (Richard Dawkins and the theory of memes), pseudo social movements like 10:23 or reactionary movements, the constant diversion of funds to campaigns skeptical “rational thought, atheism, librepensaminto” and other masks are a fake.
That is to say the easy manipulation (not just the believers in any alternative medicine) but skeptical bloggers, and Psyops of constant use as the myth that all homeopathy and “water only” or “no eviencias absolute “(said by Hess wool above), or constant polarization of ideas like this blog seeing only the side not desesado corruption, but never the place itself.
There is a clear connection between some industries, multinationals skeptical, and media manipulation mechanisms in Wikipedia, and blogs as a means of dissemination of ideas (I guess the memes) in the context pseudo skeptic.

You’re confusing two distinct things: what the original homeopathy HTA said and what the PEK report said about the homeopathy HTA. They highlighted the conclusions from the HTA and showed them to be not supported by the evidence and revised their optimistic conclusions downwards.

If you still think the report of the House of Commons is neutral and objective, being disappointed. Most of the sections on evidence never discussed.

Still no specific explanation of what exactly they got wrong, just more hand-waving.

Remember that even the famous report was never authorized by all parliamentarians.

No, the Committee’s remit allows it to investigate whatever it likes. However, this is irrelevant.

Yet in the section on meta analysis has shown that the analysis of Shang was biased, but for example, unshaven Mono only thing it does is quote me a review of Paul Winston and other blogs like Science Based Medicine and comments without of general validity that is not a real and coherent analysis, but rather are filled with anger and hatred towards homeopathy.

If you think there is a credible rebuttal of Shang et al., please provide it!

Perhaps your most current bias is to repeat ad-nausaeum that “have not produced any evidence at all” when references are cited the same report, some of whom never mention them here or on other blogs. You can say there is no evidence suficente, but say there is no evidence at all is wrong.

I’m not here to do your work for you – you claim the report is flawed, so you provide the evidence here that it is.

Even the above report does not take into account many articles that today give us a better idea of ​​how homeopathy can act (if at all).

More unfounded assertions!

In conclusion

You’ve not preented any argument yet, so it’s premature to start concluding!

the report of the House of Commons talk more about health policy

Well, that was one of the aims of the report!

and on a slight introduction of evidence and means are to evaluate (RTC Dobl blind …), and the proposal therefore advocates homeopathy

Eh?

and the Sense About Science.

Sense About Science gave oral evidence, but it was the HoC Committee’s report.

But never was a discussion between them

Never a discussion between who? The Committee and SAS? What on earth are you saying?

If you think there is no evidence that the only systematic reviews of Edzard Ernst says so, I see no remedy.

Even the findings of the anti homeopathy are often selective, in the same report of the House of Commons on page 56:

“56. For example, a 30C dilution Indicates That Has Been Diluted the solution in the ratio of
1:100, thirty times successively, one drop of the solution would be the original Diluted with 100
drops of water and the solution would be Diluted RESULTING again, and so on Until 30
dilutions HAD taken place. According To the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, in
Some homeopathic products “not a single molecule events of the Original Substance Remains
Diluted in the medicine prescribed to the patient “.60″

Just mention the power 30CH with the specific purpose of identifying only with homeopathy dilutions supean Avogadro limit, but do not mention the low doses.

You mean the potions that actually have some molecules of the MT in them? So what? Those have been tested as well and still, in the best, most independent and least biased of tests, show no effect over placebo.

The report of the House of Commons needs to be reviewed and scrutinized to see in detail that reflects objectives (not just the simplistic arguments of the pseudo-skeptics) both political and economic, ideological and social.

And has that been done? Credibly? If it’s not been reviewed and scrutinised, how are you able to come to the conclusion that it is flawed? Closed mind, perhaps?

Something interesting about this is not so much the mistakes I might make, the more interesting to me is how none of the pseudo-skeptical mind says something about the ad-hominem Edzard Ernst:

“Magufo: it is hard to surpass the nonsense you are capable of Producing!”

Pseudo-skeptics apply a clear double standard: Ertnst is like a finely used Psyop operating within the current context of the growth of homeopathy. It’s the same operation carried in the 80’s by the CSICOP against everything paranormal. But now using as a subject Ernst become a skeptic: “If Ernst was a believer in medicines than alternatives and is now a skeptic then you ertar right.” So apply a clear fallacy of authority.

Regarding this comment Shavey Badly Monkey:

“So, what? Most of homeopathy use content-free or sugar water and Its advocates claim this is why it is so safe. All well-informed Commentators Know That low-dilution remedies exist. You would need to Explain the dose-response bizarre That is implied by Behaviour this. Low-potency homeopathy depends on a “Law of Similars” that is as defective as other basic tenets STIs. ”

It interesnate know then that James Randi says that homeopathy is just water, and that the Camapaña 10:23 tells how slogan “It’s just water.”

Or if you know that there are Randi low dilutions that exceed Avogadro’s number is simple or propaganda?

Homeopathy being “just water” is short-hand for highly diluted homeopathy in most contexts where it is being criticised. You don’t get to cherry pick the least wrong and stupid part of homeopathy as if that excuses the whole thing.

Don’t be obtuse.

The claims of low-dose homeopathy are merely biologically implausible, but neither physicists nor chemists would care much about them and the “Law” of Similars might have been a valid general biological process. Of course, a ‘low potency’ dilution of the Light of Venus or Dolphin Sonar would be fatuous. But, it’s the huge dilutions that move homeopathy into the realm of fantasy and its claims become extraordinarily implausible.

You either know this and are pulling our collective plonkers or you do not know this and I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain it further.

Start practising homeopathy with 1D Strychnine and see how well that works!

By the way, Ernst’s statement was a verifiable assertion of fact. That is not an ad hominem.

In any case, it’s ad hominem is not a logical fallacy unless it is being used in the attempt to support an argument. Mojo has very helpfully illustrated the difference as follows;
Ad hom: “You’re wrong because you’re a fecking eejit.”
Not ad hom: “You’re wrong and you’re a fecking eejit”
Also not ad hom: “You’re a fecking eejit because you’re wrong.”

This site does intend to be educational. I hope things a clearer for you now.

Edzard Ernst If you complain that the Swiss report stated no conflict of interest on the part of researchers (Wolf, Baumgartner …). So that none of his followers criticized the fact that Ernst does not represent conflicts of interest from the Sense About Science and CSI? Or is that these organizations are not scientific?

You think links to scientific organisations (links you have provided no evidence of, by the way) need to be declared as conflicts of interest? Are you concerned that reality is biased against homoeopathy?

You did not answer my question.
Can you tell me where in this recording the Sense About Science as a scientific and regulated. And in this case should be registered if, as you’ve mentioned is due to Sense About Science lies in the same report on page 28:

“a) That it was believed to contain an active ingredient, and was often confused with
herbal medicine (and, related to this, that people were often unaware of the mystical
belief in water memory and in ‘like cures like’ on which it is based).
b) That because it was supplied on the National Health Service, it was assumed that it
‘must be effective’ and ‘there must be something in it’.”

Because SAS does not indicate that there is an Avogadro homeopathy within and one outside of it that it contains active ingredient?

Question and answer:
Think that the bias is unique in homeopathy? Think that only those who commit bias research in homeopathy? Edzard Ernst still think it is completely “neutral”?

I just will clarify my point. You still do not make the appointment and unanswered questions. If you think my ideas are bad even subjectively, it only shows one thing: pseudo skepicism.
Another contradiction of the pseudo-skepticism.

I just will clarify my point. You still do not make the appointment and unanswered questions. If you think my ideas are bad even subjectively, it only shows one thing: pseudo skepicism.
Another contradiction of the pseudo-skepticism.

Note that this link is a reference to the homeopathic magic taken from G. Frazer, although Stevenes Phillip Jr (the author), fails to associate and take out of context to homeopathy and homeopathic confused with magic. The comparison is a bad move. This is so badly shaved monkey (who has not given me an answer for almost a week).

* Do not use Wikipedia as a reference, as this entry on homeopathy in English is biased in favor of administrators and “skeptics”. Even mentioning the reference to Frazer without ever having read the book by the same author. It seems to be a belief among neo-skeptics believe what Wikipedia says.

Frazer refers to the same as Hahnemann? Wow, you’ve discovered something I did not know. Got a reference where Frazer explicitly mention Hahnemann’s homeopathy or is your opinion?

I replied to it thus;

Those of us outside homeopathy’s mental prison see that the concept is the same. Hahnemann and Frazer used the same word because they were describing phenomena that are the same. The difference is that Hahnemann thought he was describing real processes whereas Frazer was engaging in an analysis of processes that he knew to be imaginary. The failure is Hahnemann’s and yours.

I’m really not sure what your problem is. Homeopathy by Hahnemann is fairly obviously a form of homeopathic magic.

I think you fail to understand how debate works. The similarity between Frazer’s use of the word homeopathy and Hahnemann’s has been demonstrated logically. I have already explained that both authors ended up using the same word because the principle underlying that which they were describing is the same. We are not confusing homeopathy with magic. Hahnemann’s homeopathy is a form of homeopathic magic. You don’t like the comparison because you want to think homeopathy has real effects on the body and don’t want to admit that is is actually just a form of magical thinking.

I don’t need a citation to prove that Frazer discussed Hahnemann for the above points to be valid. I don’t care whether Frazer cited Hahnemann and it doesn’t matter whether he did or didn’t, our debate does not require it.

At the risk of being repetitious, Frazer, as far as I can tell, may well have derived his use of the word ‘homeopathic’ independently of Hahnemann’s. But even if he did not consciously refer to Hahnemann’s term, his derivation is not mere coincidence because they are talking about the same thing.

In the background of this is you showing the typical and ironic dependence on an authority figure shown by the self-proclaimed independent thinkers of SCAM. We do not find the truth by swapping citations. That is the game played by humanities and arts students whose subject is essentially governed by opinion. Your approach is the reason that the Galenic model of medicine dominated for 2,000 years and hindered progress.

Try to lose your reliance on authority figures and do a bit of independent thinking. Then you will recognise that Hahnemann’s homeopathic therapy is just a version of Frazer’s homeopathic magic. The difference, as I have already said is that Hahnemann thinks of it from an “in universe” perspective , whereas Frazer describes it from the outside recognising it as a magical belief.

Magufo, I am left merely wondering why this is more important for you to quibble over instead of answering Alan’s questions.

Now get your self Free and Paid Homeopathic Advice and Medicine from the best panel of doctors with tested results. This foundation works on no profit / loss basis and hence charges for your medicine only. Visitwww.homeopathiconline.org and get best and instant results. First Technology Solution Online. Emailadvice@homeopathiconline.org for more information